The problem of discipline and the problems of low achievement and achievement gaps are interrelated. Lack of engagement in school underpins both. A very effective, preventative approach to reduce the achievement gap, is do the very same thing that prevents discipline problems — create intense student engagement. Cooperative learning is certainly not the only way to create intense student engagement, but it is one very powerful way.

Let's examine what happens to achievement and the achievement gap when cooperative learning is introduced. Meta-analyses show that across hundreds of controlled research studies, students scoring at the 50% level would be scoring at around 75% had they been in cooperative learning classes.²¹

	Focus No. of Effects Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain Cooperative Learning v. Traditional1 182 .78 28 Cooperative Learning v. Traditional2 414 .63 23 Cooperative Learning v. Traditional3 122 .73 27 Cooperative Learning v. Traditional4 104 .78 28 Cooperative Learning v. Individual Competition5 70 .78 28
Source: Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., Pollock, J.E., Classroom Instruction that Works, Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA;ASCD, 2001. 1 Walberg, 1999; 2 Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; 3 Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; 4 Johnson & Johnson; 5 Johnson & Johnson.

Further, more importantly for the achievement gap issue, these gains are primarily due to the gains of low achieving students. There is a dramatic catch-up effect when cooperative learning is used, closing the achievement gap.²²

Source: Kagan, S. "Excellence and Equity." Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 2009.

It is no mystery why cooperative learning produces a dramatic reduction in achievement gaps. In the traditional classroom when the teacher asks a question of the class, the teacher calls on volunteers to raise their hands to answer. It is the high achievers who raise their hands and the teacher calls on one. Rather than risking public failure and embarrassment, low achievers are less likely to raise their hand. Thus the teacher ends up calling most on those who least need the practice. The low achieving students become less engaged, allowing the high achievers to answer.  A vicious circle is created in which low achievement leads to less engagement that in turn leads to even lower achievement. Gradually the low achievers become a subset of disengaged students. In contrast, in the cooperative learning class the teacher might use a RallyRobin or Timed Pair Share, having students give their answers to a partner.  All students are engaged. There is no subset of disengaged students. 

To take another example, following direct instruction the traditional teacher has students practice the skill alone on a worksheet. A low achieving student might not know how to perform, or worse yet, might think they do and practice the wrong procedure. Failing, they begin to internalize a lower academic self-esteem, which leads to less engagement and less effort in the future. This vicious circle is not created in the cooperative learning class because students work in pairs or teams so low achieving students get the immediate encouragement, support, and coaching they need. They can't practice wrong or give up. Because of the immediate support they stay engaged.

That all students are more engaged during cooperative learning is supported by brain research. PET scans reveal the brains of students are far more engaged when explaining ideas to a partner than when just listening to or simply responding to a teacher.²³

Further, research at the cellular level shows cooperation stimulates the reward tracks in the brain. Literally brains light up when cooperating, so students find cooperative work rewarding and engaging.²⁴

Dropout

The strongest predictors of dropout are poor academic achievement and discipline problems, including suspensions. A recent study found the best predictors of dropout to be: failing English I, scoring below grade level on grade 8 standardized reading tests, being retained, scoring low on math tests, and being suspended for discipline problems.²⁵ As we have seen, however, discipline and achievement problems are symptoms of disengagement. Clearly, then, if we create full engagement of all students, we will dramatically reduce major causes of dropout.

Perhaps we should change our terminology. Instead of "dropout," which implies the problem is a decision a student makes, we might consider "pushout," which implies the problem is the way we structure instruction. Traditional instructional strategies inadvertently create a subclass of within-class dropouts that eventually become school dropouts. Without intending, minute-by-minute as we ask questions of our class, we create winners and losers, the losers destined eventually to drop out.

The processes by which we inadvertently create winners and losers has been detailed elsewhere.²⁶ A teacher using traditional instructional strategies attempts to get active engagement among students by asking questions for the students to answer. For example, the teacher may ask, "Who can name a reason for the recent financial meltdown?" Students wishing to respond raise their hands. The teacher calls on one to give the answer. During that simple interaction only the high achievers raise their hands to be called on. Lower achieving students, shy students, linguistic minority students don't raise their hands. Volunteer responding creates engagement for only the high achieving students. As we have seen, it creates a subset of disengaged students who are not included in the interaction. As that scenario is repeated day after day, without intending, the teacher has included some and excluded others, effectively creating a group of winners and a group of losers. Those who do not raise their hands become less and less engaged. Their minds begin to wander. They rationalize their lack of engagement: "This class is boring." After enough years of being a loser, the student decides not to play the game. In-class dropout eventually becomes school dropout. Or, would it be better to say, pushout?

There are a number of alternatives to the traditional instructional strategies that create full engagement for all students. Multiple intelligences instructional strategies create inclusive classrooms in which students can learn in ways that match their unique pattern of intelligences.²⁷ Differentiated instruction tailors curriculum and instructional strategies to ensure each student is taught in engaging ways.²⁸ Simple cooperative learning strategies, called structures, create engagement for all students.²⁹ For example, to get all students engaged when asking the question about the causes of the recent financial meltdown, instead of calling on one student, the teacher might have students do a Team Interview, Jot Thoughts, RoundRobin, RallyRobin, or even Numbered Heads Together. In all structures, all students are engaged. If the teacher chose a simple RallyRobin, students in pairs take turns naming possible causes. In the same amount of time the teacher using the traditional method could call on and respond to two or three students, each giving one answer, the teacher could have every student in the class give several answers. The meta-communication with the traditional strategy is: Some can contribute and some cannot. The meta-communication with the cooperative structure: Everyone has ideas to contribute. The cooperative structure is inclusive; there is no pushout.

Where Shall We Focus: Consequence or Cause?

We have a choice. We can treat the symptoms of disengagement, including discipline problems, achievement gaps, and dropout. Or we can walk upstream and eliminate the most important cause of those symptoms: lack of student engagement. In one case, we blame the student and attribute the problem to their culture, economic background, or personality. In the other case, we transform our instructional delivery systems to meet the needs of all learners. With a preventative rather than a treatment model, most students who would have been discipline problems become fully engaged, with no desire to disrupt or disengage. Students who would have fallen behind receive the stimulation and support they need to excel. Students, who would have been labeled dropouts, become fully engaged in the educational system, moving on to higher learning.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next »